The Real Culprit Of 9/11?

Something else not mentioned in the report. - Jon


By Arnaud de Borchgrave

Washington, DC, Jul. 22 (UPI) -- On the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.

The document, from a high-level, but anonymous Pakistani source, also claims that Osama bin Laden has been receiving periodic treatment for dialysis in a military hospital in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province adjacent to the Afghan border.

The document was received by the Commission this week as its own report was already coming off the presses. The information was supplied to the Commission on the understanding that the unimpeachable source would remain anonymous.

The report received by the 9/11 Commission from the anonymous, well-connected Pakistani source, said: "The core issue of instability and violence in South Asia is the character, activities and persistence of the militarized Islamist fundamentalist state in Pakistan. No cure for this canker can be arrived at through any strategy of negotiations, support and financial aid to the military regime, or by a 'regulated' transition to 'democracy'."

The confidential report continued, "The imprints of every major act of international Islamist terrorism invariably passes through Pakistan, right from 9/11 -- where virtually all the participants had trained, resided or met in, coordinated with, or received funding from or through Pakistan -- to major acts of terrorism across South Asia and Southeast Asia, as well as major networks of terror that have been discovered in Europe."

Even before the 9/11 Commission received the report on Pakistan's role in the terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Commission's own report stated: "Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his (bin Laden's) ability to use Afghanistan as a base."

A spokesman for the Pakistani embassy categorically denied Thursday that Osama bin Laden had ever been treated "in any military hospital anywhere in Pakistan."

"The reports, based on unnamed intelligence sources, are usually a figment of the writer's imagination," Mohammed Sadiq, Pakistan's deputy chief of mission in Washington told United Press International.

Asked to comment on the claim that Pakistan was aware of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks before they occurred, Sadiq said: "This is basically the recycling of old charges, the unproven old charges ... We have been working very closely with the U.S. administration and it is important to note that the U.S. administration also has always rejected these charges as false. No one seems to know these imaginary intelligence sources."

Pakistan is still denying President Pervez Musharraf knew anything about the activities of Dr. A.Q. Khan, the country's most prominent nuclear scientist who had spent the last 10 years building and running a one-stop global shopping center for "rogue" nations. North Korea, Iran and Libya did their shopping for nuclear weapons at Khan's underground black market outlet.

After U.S. and British intelligence painstakingly pieced together Khan's global nuclear proliferation endeavors, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was assigned last fall to inform Musharraf.

Khan, a national hero for giving Pakistan its nuclear arsenal, was not arrested. Instead, Musharraf pardoned him in exchange for an abject apology on national television in English. Few in Pakistan believed Musharraf's story that he was totally in the dark about Khan's operation. Prior to seizing power in 1999, Gen. Musharraf was -- and still is -- Army Chief of Staff. For the past five years, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence chief reported directly to Musharraf.

Osama bin Laden's principal Pakistani adviser prior to 9/11 was retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who is "strategic adviser" to the coalition of six politico-religious parties that governs two of Pakistan's four provinces. Known as MMA, the coalition also occupies 20 percent of the seats in the federal assembly in Islamabad. Hours after 9/11, Gul publicly accused Israel's Mossad of fomenting the 9/11 plot. Later, Gul said the U.S. Air Force must have been in on the conspiracy as no warplanes were scrambled to shoot down the hijacked airliners.

Gul spent two weeks in Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. He denied having met Osama bin Laden during that trip, but has always said he was an "admirer" of the al-Qaida leader. However, he did meet with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader, on several occasions.

Since 9/11, hardly a week goes by without Gul denouncing the U.S. in both the Urdu and English-language media.

In a conversation with this reporter in October 2001, Gul forecast a future Islamist nuclear power that would form a greater Islamic state with a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia after the demise of the monarchy.

Gul worked closely with the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when he was in charge of ISI. He was "mildly" fundamentalist in those days, he explained after 9/11, and indifferent to the U.S. But he became passionately anti-American after the U.S. turned its back on Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, and began punishing Pakistan with economic and military sanctions for its secret nuclear buildup.

A ranking CIA official, speaking not for attribution, said the agency considered Gul to be "the most dangerous man" in Pakistan. A senior Pakistani political leader, also speaking on condition his name not be used, said, "I have reason to believe Hamid Gul was Osama bin Laden's master planner."

"Pakistan has harvested an enormous price," the anonymous report said, for its apparent 'cooperation' with the U.S., and in this it has combined deception and blackmail -- including nuclear blackmail -- to secure a continuous stream of concessions. Its conduct is little different from that of North Korea, which has in the past chosen the nuclear path to secure incremental aid from Western donors. A pattern of sustained nuclear blackmail has consistently been at the heart of Pakistan's case for concessions, aid and a heightened threshold of international tolerance for its sponsorship and support of Islamist terrorism.

"To understand how this works, it is useful to conceive of Pakistan's ISI as a state acting as terrorist traffickers, complaining that, if it does not receive the extraordinary dispensations and indulgences that it seeks, it will, in effect, 'implode,' and in the process do extraordinary harm.

"Part of the threat of this 'explosion' is also the specter of the transfer of its nuclear arsenal and capabilities to more intransigent and irrational elements of the Islamist far right in Pakistan, who would not be amenable to the logic that its present rulers -- whose interests in terrorism are strategic, and consequently, subject to considerations of strategic advantage -- are willing to listen to...

"...It is crucial to note that if the Islamist terrorist groups gain access to nuclear devices, ISI will almost certainly be the source...At least six Pakistani scientists connected with the country's nuclear program were in contact with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden with the thorough instructions of ISI.

"Pakistan has projected the electoral victory of the fundamentalist and pro-Taliban, pro-al-Qaida Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in the November elections as 'proof' that the military is the only 'barrier' against the country passing into the hands of the extremists. The fact, however, is that the elections were widely rigged, and this was a fact acknowledged by the European Union observers, as well as by some of the MMA's constituents themselves. The MMA victory was, in fact, substantially engineered by the Musharraf regime, as are the various anti-U.S. 'mass demonstrations' around the country.

"Pakistan has made a big case out of the fact that some of the top line leadership of al-Qaida has been arrested in the country with the 'cooperation' of the Pakistani security forces and intelligence. However, the fact is that each such arrest only took place after the FBI and U.S. investigators had effectively gathered evidence to force Pakistani collaboration, but little of this evidence had come from Pakistani intelligence agencies. Indeed, ISI has consistently sought to deny the presence of al-Qaida elements in Pakistan, and to mislead U.S. investigators...This deception has been at the very highest level, and Musharraf himself, for instance, initially insisted he was 'certain' bin Laden was dead.

"...ISI has been actively facilitating the relocation of the al-Qaida from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and the conspiracy of substantial segments of serving Army and intelligence officers is visible."

"...The Pakistan Army consistently denies giving the militants anything more than moral, diplomatic and political support. The reality is quite different. ISI issues money and directions to militant groups, specially the Arab hijackers of 9/11 from al-Qaida. ISI was fully involved in devising and helping the entire affair. And that is why people like Hamid Gul and others very quickly stated the propaganda that CIA and Mossad did it."

"...The dilemma for Musharraf is that many of his army officers are still deeply sympathetic to al-Qaida, Taliban militants and the Kashmir cause. The radical sympathies of many ISI operatives are all too apparent. Many retired and present ISI officers retain close links to al-Qaida militants hiding in various state sponsored places in Pakistan and Kashmir as well as leaders from the defeated Taliban regime. They regard the fight against Americans and Jews and Indians in different parts of the world as legitimate jihad."

The report also says that "according to a senior tribal leader in Peshawar, bin Laden, who suffers from renal deficiency, has been periodically undergoing dialysis in a Peshawar military hospital with the knowledge and approval of ISI if not of Gen. Pervez Musharraf himself."

The same source, though not in the report, speculated Musharraf may be planning to turn over bin Laden to President Bush in time to clinch his reelection bid in November.

Staff at the 9/11 Commission did not immediately respond to requests for comments regarding the Pakistan memo.

the link is broken

Do you have a working URL?


But that's the original link. Maybe you could see it in webarchives? Here's a link from *shivers* newsmax...

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Hey simuvac...

Am I an idiot for thinking the Pakistani ISI may have had something to do with 9/11? I mean, it's a shame that reputable news organizations like MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc... weren't the ones that reported about the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta, and instead we had to rely on the Times Of India.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Clearly, there is now a group at 911blogger

who don't like this ISI angle, for various reasons. I'm not sure when the tide turned, so to speak. In another forum, this debate over the wire transfer produced many reasons not to trust the Times of India story, but I didn't find the overall argument against ISI involvement convincing for two reasons that, in my mind, have yet to be explained adequately.

Yes, the Times of India story is suspect, and there is confusion over whether it was confirmed by the FBI. However, I think there are two pieces of circumstantial evidence that are pretty damning.

First, the coincidental meeting of Gen. Ahmed with Washington luminaries the week prior to and including 9/11.

Second, the immediately dismissal of Gen. Ahmed as soon as the Times story surfaced.

I give the Times story credibility on the basis of those two pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Can you imagine, for example, the head of the CIA stepping down because a North Korean newspaper ran a story saying the CIA director transferred money to the 9/11 hijackers?

Sorry, but this is like saying

you trust the story of Atta because first they found his luggage and second his passport. All four events fit in perfectly with a patsy scheme, and you can be sure Gen. Ahmed will suffer as much retribution as Osama did, that is to say none whatsoever.

I'm not sure I follow you

I'm saying, What are the odds Gen. Ahmed would be meeting with Washington power brokers the week of 9/11, and top congressional intelligence brokers on 9/11, and yet would have nothing to do with 9/11, and then would be removed from his post following 9/11 and the allegation that he had a connection to the money used for 9/11?

Finding Atta's passport is not analogous with meeting Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of 9/11.


what are the odds that Atta would be protected by FBI higher ups in the months preceding 9/11, then would leave a bunch of convenient evidence during 9/11, and yet would have nothing to do with 9/11?

Pretty much zero.

But that does in no way, shape or form suggest he was in any way responsible for 9/11, now does it? And that is the point: There is no evidence to suggest Ahmed was responsible for 9/11, there is only evidence for him being connected to Atta and Graham and Goss, who were certainly all components of the game.

But not the key players.

ISI is funded by CIA

I think the ISI is controversial but let me point out that the CIA funds the ISI. So although the money could have come from the ISI, the order for the transfer could have come from the CIA. We don't know.

The hijackers are so interesting because of all of the stunning evidence about them... but ultimately I think they are a distraction away from the main issues.

They can't make buildings designed to survive plane crashes collapse

They can't fly planes into buildings with little to no training

They can't fly a plane into a Pentagon.

None of the four pilots hit the "HIJACK" button to indicate that they were being hijacked.

"The pilots apparently did not punch in the four-digit hijack code air traffic control into the transponder, the controller says because the radar facility never received any transmitted code - which a pilot would normally send the moment a hijack situation was known."

Flight 93 is a separate issue.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

CNN broke the story...

... not the Times of India. It's just that CNN garbled it a bit (confusing al-Hawsawi, Saeed Sheikh and Sheikh Syed), and didn't mention he was involved with Mahmoud Ahmed. Here's the first report on CNN I found that mentions Saeed Sheikh specifically. It's dated the day before the Times of India story.

Previously there were several stories in the US media mentioning a transfer from Pakistan, they were carried by ABC, Fox and AP. The story has also been in various other media. Check out the Saeed Sheikh timeline:

You especially want the entries for Summer 2001 and Before, and September 30-October 7, 2001.

If you also check out the Early August 2001 entry you can see that respected AP journalist Kathy Gannon reported the story in 2002 citing "western intelligence".

The story of the wire transfer from Pakistan was clearly circulating in the US at the end of September/beginning of October (also mentioned by congressman John LaFalce) and everybody was reporting it, but when Saeed Sheikh's name got attached to it, they dropped it like a hot potato.

IMO, this is fluff

IMO, this is a junk article. It makes a sensational claim (the Pakistanis knew beforehand) but then fails to follow up with much hard info. The rest of the article contains a lot of fluff.

This article reinforces the accepted myth, that it was 19 disenchanted hijackers who did the operation, and that they were supported by the Taliban (and in this article, Pakistan is brought into the frame). We all know that the official myth is a lie. Those guys couldn't even fly properly! So how can we accept the official myth?

This 'document from an anonymous source' could be a fake, by the same people who faked the Iraq/WMD and African Yellowcake documents, in order to set up Pakistan and squeeze Musharraf.

I don't think Pakistan is involved in 9/11 except maybe as unwitting fall-guys (i.e. CIA to ISI: 'hey, even though we could do it ourselves, take this cash and wire it to this guy, so that your fingerprints will be on it if the truth ever emerges')

What has Pakistan to gain from 9/11? What did they gain? IMO, nothing much. They were forced to out a friendly government (the Taliban) and now have to bear a US puppet government. Also, Musharraf faces a lot of discontent amongst the public due to his relationship with the US after 9/11.

Remember how recently, Musharraf revealed how he was threatened if he did not cooperate after 9/11?

So what did Pakistan gain at all? Therefore, I think it is a false lead, and also the wiring of the 100k cash is also a false lead.

Qui Bono? Remember those comments said on 9/11? Good for who?

But you forgot to mention...

The billions of dollars in aid Pakistan has received from the United States as well as military equipment, and so on.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Good point... but are you

Good point... but are you trying to say that Pakistan did 9/11 just to get some cash? I have a hard time believeing that.

I just can't figure out a motive here?

On the other hand, I can definately see a strong motive from the Neocons and certain of their Allies who want to weaken their rivals in the Middle East.


Not some cash. Billions of dollars of aid, billions of dollars in military equipment, and the backing and support of the most powerful country on the planet.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Wasnt the ISI our means of

Wasnt the ISI our means of controlling OBL? I am confused as to whether you imply a state was behind this. Would not the ISI have been the "go between" between the Bush and BinLadin family "covert" matters?

From what I understand...

Several "states" were involved. Pakistan being just one of them.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Not so fast.

According to this indian newspaper, Pakistan received 3 billions in total aid, both military and civilian, between 2001 and 2005, i.e. 750 million per annum. Coincidentally, 3 billion is just the amount of aid Israel receives per year, according to the christian science monitor.

So, if garnering foreign aid is indeed considered indicative for 9/11 complicity - as you seem to say - you now know where to look first, Jon.

This blog is not about Israel

Its about Pakistan.

No one is going to take your bait here.

Oh, right Herr Hauptmann!

Bugger off with your blatant attempts at thought dictatorship, Jessica Albanese.

Consider that

I merely put Jon's financial rationale into perspective, and you can conclude that there must be at least 4 people on here who apparently prefer thought policing over an open, honest debate of the topic of this blog.

Good riddance.

This blog is not about Israel


So you continue to assert

oblivious to the fact that a blog about Pakistan that doesn't put Pakistan into a context that includes Israel is anti-Muslim crap. ("Oblivious" being the charitable interpretation.)


This blog is not about Israel. Its about Pakistan.

Not so much "thought police" as demoralizing op

Read my blog about disruptors. (click on my name, then my blogs, etc.)

This looks like a reasonable civil discussion and I don't really get the negatives. I reserve negatives for: deliberate disrputors, trolls, uncalled for/ excessive rudeness, deliberate obtusness/strawman rubbish, going WAAAAYY of topic, spaming or hideously long posts that should be blogged.

Not for simple, civil, disagreement. So, yeah, I think some might have an agenda, but it isn't policing's discouraging civil participation.

Or maybe some haven't recalibrated their rating responses since the Troll Wars... ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


The motive lies in the HISTORY of Pakistan and the ISI. You speak of Pakistan as if it is just one more independent state in the middle east. It is not. Modern day Pakistan is an invention of USA interventionism in the region. The Pakistan ISI is a CIA construct of the post-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the USA's desire to invent and control the anti-soviet Mujahadeen (spelling?). This name later changed. You may have heard of them... Al Qaeda.

The Pakistan ISI was basically funded and directed by the CIA which in turn INVENTED the Taliban, the terrorist training camps, and the mythology behind Al Qaeda.

No one disputes the history of Al Qaeda. No one disputes that Osama originally worked for the USA as part of the Mujahadeen. The official story is that they turned on us. Yet - i find it a little incredible that they did - considering their close ties to the ISI - and the fact that they basically were right under the noses of our puppets in the region.

Ever see those videos of Al Qaeda training camps with arabs climbing monkey bars? Great theater. Do youy really believe this is how terrorists operate? Running around climbing monkey bars? These videos were part of several high profile moves by the Taliban in the run-up to 911 to bring attention to their existence. Blowing up the Buddah statues was another one - if you remember. The late 1990s was ripe with propaganda that Al Qaeda was there.

Yet - interestingly enough - no one moved against these KNOWN terrorist training camps - even after 2 american embassies were blown up. Hmmmmm....

Also remember what ELSE happened in the years immediately preceeding 911.... Pakistan acquired nukes. interesting that a 'supposedly' muslim controlled nation with CLOSE documented ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda would acquire nukes without Israel and the USA blinking an eye... right? In fact = it does not seem like there was any controversy at all - right?


The ISI has always been a franchise operation of the CIA that controlled the local lucrative drug trade (we're talking BILLIONS here)while providing a much needed nuclear buffer zone between Iran and Afghanistan.

The "Pakistan is a Patsie" meme simply does not wash. Pakistan has neven been held accountable for ANYTHING - and the ONLY reason these stories are surfacing NOW is to offset American intentions against Iran.

I do not put much weight on the $100,000 transfer to Atta. If anything I believe this was simply a story that gained legs because anyonee who knows anything knows that the ISI and Al Qaeda are closely tied. Surely, the USA did not NEED $100,000 to so conspiculously be wired to Atta. Atta could have been funded in Florida very easily through the Sun Cruz money laundering operation.

But - the underlying facts are damning beyond debate. Does this mean that i believe Pakistan DID 9/11? Of course not. They simply do nt have the resources and technical savy to pull off such an event. But, i do see clear complicity in creating the mythology of Al Qaeda.

It should suprise NO ONE that it was recently exposed that the Bush Administration is funding Al Qaeda linked groups. This is nothing new. The last 4 administrations created Al Qaeda.

sorry jon this article is not very convincing.

I lost track of the number of anonymous sources--in fact, there wasn't a single named source in the whole article is there?

And let's see... Newsmax? I won't even bother. Times of India? Let's see India and Pakistan... Hindus versus... muslims. OK, well Washington Times? Moonies.

And for God's sake WHAT does an alleged transfer of money to Mohammed Atta have to do with the controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7?

How in the world did the Pakistanis manage to rig building 7 for demolition? Poor Larry Silverstein... hooked in with the Pakistanis somehow, huh? Do you realize the absurdity of what you would have people believe?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


You're 100% correct...

The Times of India is an absurd publication. Too bad it wasn't MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, The Washington Post, The New York Times, that reported it. We all know how reputable those companies are. I don't believe any of that nasty news that comes out of Venezuela either. Seeing as how they're our enemy and all.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

what the transfer might have to do with WTC

If -- and this is pure speculation -- the alleged hijackers were patsies who didn't realize they were being set up, then it wouldn't matter so much that they have no visible ideological connection with Larry Silverstein or the neocons. The hijackers are just hired hands, and the ISI is the talent agency (ultimately directed by THE agency, the CIA). The demolitions could have been rigged months in advance, just waiting for the signal that the "match" was on.

That is, I don't see it as necessary to have the hijackings and demolitions conducted by the same people. The ISI would offer the neocons the type of distance necessary for plausible deniability.

In his ever-charming and never obscure fashion,

I think RT is offering a reminder that some people (myself included) place more weight on the destruction of the buildings than on the hijackings.

I don't see this as an

I don't see this as an either/or type of thing. On one hand I disprove the "official story" by shooting holes in it the size of door knockers, and on the other side I show the implausibility of the "collapses".

Obviously the hijackers were the cover story, but proving that (showing how they were coke heads, etc.) is still a very very good way to open people's eyes.

Well... perhaps.

It depends on your understanding of the real purpose of 9/11 (which I alone know, bwahahaha.) I take as a basic premise the idea that 9/11 was a coup, but not a coup d'etat in the usual sense. Rather, it was as if it were a "world-view hijacking" -- convincing people of the reality of the murderous Muslims, the violent nature of Islam, and the necessity of a War on Terror, whereas before, "Islamic terrorists" were pretty low on the hierarchy of boogeymen. Webster Tarpley made a really interesting argument along these lines in the Q and A after his Arizona presentation. Anyhoo, can you open people's eyes by showing that the hijackers probably weren't "Islamic fundamentalists" without reinforcing the idea that "Islamic terrorists" want to kill us because they hate our freedoms? Probably -- but you need to be careful.

9/11 was definitely a

9/11 was definitely a "world-view hijacking" (neat term).

While I don't think we should perpetuate the idea that islamic boogeymen are out to get us (which is not inherently perpetuated by pointing out flaws to their role (or accused role)), we also shouldn't perpetuate the idea that everything under the sun was done by our own government and not through the use of proxy (patsy) states as we have done for many years.

My goal is to wake people up, and honestly the controlled demolition argument does not work on everyone (although it usually does if your good :) ). If showing how rediculous the official story as related to the hijackers and "al-queda" opens that door then so be it, then I'll worry about discussing the true purpose with the person.

Patsy states

I think we have all heard of a certain obvious patsy-state-connection, where dog wags tail or some say vice versa. You know, the one that has basically been defined by the subject thou shalt not speak of, and whose agents felt so much compassion with the american people that they couldn't help but cheer when the WTC was hit.

But hey, that ISI connection - or rather singular alleged money transfer - is really much more indicting!

This blog is not about Israel


This blog is titled "the real culprit of 9/11?"...

so its discussion will have to include Israel considering the facts. If you have anything to rebut that assertion, let's hear it!

This blog is about Pakistan - not Israel


Nothing like...

A friend referring to someone that refers to me as an agent of Larry Silverstein's as "charming".

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Have I not paid enough attention,

or were it really only you and Mr. Albanese that ever brought up "agent" here lately? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

BBC: "We're not part of a conspiracy! We're not part of a conspiracy!"

Must remember to close "tongue in cheek" tag.

But dude, that does not mean I'm not going to call you on your bullshit. And submitting this blog -- and titling it "the real culprit of 9/11" -- is a pretty transparent attempt to rekindle the flame war going on the Tarpley thread after the board mods shut it down. It is inflammatory in the extreme.

I think the only people who take seriously and/or literally RT's assertion that you're an agent of Silverstein are you and Albanese.

Moreover, "the church of controlled demolition" is one of the most ignorant phrases ever used on this board.

No - its not inflammatory

It is proof that you cannot shut down this line of research by accusing us of being agents.

The Pakistan research is important - and attempts to silence it will not succeed.

Now - YOU have a choice of simply engaging in the debate - based on the facts - or avoiding this message board altogether.

But - showing up here and accusing people of being agents for Nico Haupt (which has already happened here today) is a very transparent attempt to disrupt any real dialogue on the Pakistan research.

Pakistan research: over and done with.


It's ironic that you talk about "engaging in the debate based on the facts' when you are the first person to run for the non-arguments "I have a right to my opinion" and the ever-popular appeal to authority ("All the venerated leaders of 9/11 Truth say...")

Thank you for your transparency.

Now, I'm done with this thread because I don't want to make dz have to step in and extinguish another flame war because we can't do it ourselves.


its AMAZING that you can defend people who openly accuse Jon and myself of taking money from Larry Silverstein - and of being AGENTS comlicit in the murder of thousands - without blinking an eye.

you have NO PROBLEM slandering my reputation.

typical provacateur bullshit.

look here, pal

If you want to troll around here calling me a bigot because I think people should focus on Israel's role more than on Pakistan's, and because I'm not afraid to extend what I've learned about 9/11 to other elements of mainstream historical narrative, that's your choice. But having opened the floor to the expression of such opinions, you cannot turn around and complain that I'm being unfair to YOU. Just like when you walk around as if you are Dr. Disinfo proclaiming who is and is not disinfo, you are being a child or disingenuous if you think that that does not open you up to similar accusations.

Your insistence on Pakistani complicity is suspect. What EXACTLY is the source and confirmation for this story? I haven't really seen that issue addressed. In fact, the story of the wire transfer was basically a government leak, and you know how reliable those are.

The John-Jon fixation on Pakistan is really rather difficult to understand given the scant and sketchy evidence for any significant role by Pakistan in the evnts of 9/11.

You both seem to act as if you really believe al Qaeda was behind 9/11, otherwise why would you be discussing it on this site? This is not It is

And the simple fact is that 9/11 consisted of 1) planes flying into the twin towers, 2) the controlled demolition of three buildings, 3) a suspicious explosion/impact at the pentagon, and 4) a crater in pennsylvania

Aside from obviously planted evidence, nothing links Mohammed Atta directly to any of those events. Therefore nothing links Pakistan via an alleged, unproven wire transfer, to any of those events.

The real culprit? That's just dishonest Jon. A minor loose thread maybe. How obvious does a set-up have to be for you to see it? Or is your intention in promoting the Pakistani angle actually to draw attention away from the much more damning evidence of Israeli involvement? I'm sorry if that is an insinuation that offends you, but your (and John's) behavior begs the question, and NO ONE is above scrutiny when it comes to 9/11. Not ONE person. To claim a privelege for yourselves that you grant to no one else is pretty shitty, and it is your credibility that suffers when you dodge the issue with a show of indignation with very little by way of facts or arguments backing it up.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Sorry, Jenny slept on her shoulder wrong(OW!) and just doesn't have the patence to be nice right now.

cas= provacatuer was just the limit for me. >:(

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


you have no problem with this same circle of provacateurs calling me an agent and accusing me of taking money from Larry Silverstein?

you should know the facts before stepping into a day-old flame war and sharing your opinions.

i have NO BEEF with you - or anyone else on this board.

but - i will NOT be told i cannot share my opinions - and i will NOT allow people to accuse me of being an agent complicit in the murder of thousands.

Reading comprehension out to lunch much?

Where the fuck did I say you could not share your opinions? I said, "CAN WE ALL JUST BLOODY WELL BEHAVE?" That was a message for everyone--since you missed that...

Jenny is not in the mood for phoney denseness...or phoney umbrage. Next time you want me to stay out of your "day-old flame war" I suggest you take it somewhere private where I DON"T HAVE TO BLOODY WELL READ IT!

Shoulder still doesn't feel good--BTW. >:-/

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

But casseia...

That's the original title of the article.

And the phrase, "Church Of Controlled Demolition", does not demean the efforts to prove Controlled Demolition at the towers and at WTC7. It refers to those individuals who think Controlled Demolition is the END ALL BE ALL of 9/11 Truth, and who refer to anything else, or anyone else as shillish, agents, etc...

I think your refusal to see that is being ignorant. I also think your refusal to see Real Truther for what he really is, is ignorant. You want to talk about "Blood Libel"? Ok, the United States is currently involved in genocide in Iraq. The "Powers That Be" have successfully managed to make a lot of people think of Muslims as insane, bloodthirsty murderers.

And then there are the anti-semites... those individuals that are hellbent on tying Israel to 9/11 just because they don't like jews. There's no problem with that though is there? In fact, it's rather "charming".

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Who here

qualifies as apostle of the "COCD", as you describe it? That would include "end all be all" and "who refer to anything else, or anyone else as shillish, agents, etc..."

And who here "just don't like jews", in your opinion?

Merely two questions

to see why Jon Gold would go to those extremes in describing the situation - No answers, yet all the more burying.

At least I can rest assured that any thinking person can see this for what it is. Over and out.

Watch Press for Truth

The picture beginning to emerge is that rogue operatives were channeling support to the hijackers through the ISI. This is what the CIA did in the 80s to defeat the Russians.

The US had a plant that fed money and logistical support to some very real terrorist. This is what it looks like they had on 7/7 in the UK. And on the WTC bombing in 92.

Real terrorists supported by covert operatives. Rumsfeld and Meyers just paved their way on 911.

I am starting to think that the buildings were a seperate operation carried out by Mossad. Plane crashes weren't enough, it had to be bigger. The dancing Israelis, according to some reports, apparently had trace explosives detected by dogs. Perhaps they were cheering their demolition success.

The Pentagon was necessary to make sure we could declare war and not just a crime.

Flight 93 was probably shot down because it really was headed for the White House.

I know some think the whole operation was manufactured from scratch. But I find it much more plausable that US operatives took an already existing terrorist operation by real Islamists and fed it, took advantage of it, and then let our pals the Israelis provide special effects.

This is the only way I can see to reconcile the very real evidence of the Dancing Israelis, the "art students", and the Israeli financial connections with Greenberg and Silverstein.

In a way, this is a LIHOP Plus theory. We didn't invent the operation. But we did more tna let it happen.

Of course, those who want to believe in remote controlled, holographic, missile guided space planes should reject this idea immediatly. It's not very sci-fi and does not resemble the X-Files. But it sure resemble the MO of operations we've seen before and goes pretty well with most of the evidence.

no need o lump remote control with spac3 b3amz

unmanned aerial vehicles are nothing new under the sun. whoever rigged the wtc with explosives knew about the planes, since that was the cover for the explosives. they could not have risked failure by a human hijacker pilot to reach their target.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



The explosive demolition idea does seem to require remote-controlled planes.

Building 7 and Larry Silverstein have nothing to do with this

The article does not suggest that Pakistan executed the demolition of Building 7.

The Pakistan story has everything to do with the facilitation of the Al Qaeda myth - and the facilitation of the alleged patsy hijackers.

Thanks Jon...

I was not aware of this document that the 9/11 Commission allegedly received from an ISI insider. Up until now I was under the impression the only real source for the story was the Times of India article (which was also repeated by other papers). Of course the more general ISI-Al Qaeda and ISI-US ties have been reported much more widely.

As for the previous responses, let's be serious here: a simplistic and primary cause/agent view of 9/11 is not going to represent or explain the facts. The idea that investigating ISI-9/11 ties is irrelevant because the ISI could not have pulled it off from start to finish is disingenuous--surely individuals and institutions can influence or contribute to an event without being the sole agent causally responsible. As for what would motivate the ISI, it seems to me first that Pakistan and the ISI must be distinguished, and second, that it seems motives are complex and sometimes contradictory. There is evidence for islamic fundamentalism in the ISI, and it is not just a cover story. They may be playing their interests off of the US's just as much as we suspect the US intelligence apparatus is trying to play islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism -- this is misleading.

There isn't much reason to think that pork-eating, stripper-porking, gambling Atta, the glorious leader of the "Islamic fundamentalist hijackers" was even a practicing Muslim, let alone a fundamentalist one. Bin Laden, who does a much more convincing job acting the role of an Islamic fundamentalist, denied participation in 9/11. Of all the ways to identify the perpetrators of 9/11, "Islamic fundamentalists" seems one of the weaker.

OTOH, identifying the enemy as "Islamic fundamentalists" is very useful in persuading a population to participate in the "War of Civilizations" or Crusades, redux.

Not disagreeing with you here...

I don't disagree with you here that there are definitely contradictions in the claim that the hijackers were islamic fundamentalists and various accounts of their behavior.

I was simply pointing out that, as for the ISI, there is evidence of fundamentalism. What does that mean? That for some, perhaps, manipulating or contributing to an attack on America may have been compelling. Was that motivation taken advantage of unwittingly by others who knew what was going down? Perhaps...

Again, I think a little willingness to consider 9/11 as the result of complex interactions rather than simple and straightforward intent is useful. That does not in any way lessen the crimes or the need for accountability that occurred on 9/11, but it does mean that without actually knowing what the interactions were, we would be foolish to (a) assume we understand how they worked, and (b) assume that how they worked was a one-way, US-gov't-led top-down operation.

Just as a reminder... Who are all the stakeholders in this? Elements of: the ISI, CIA, FBI, Bush Administration, PNAC, military industry, oil industry (?), P-Tech and Saudi(?) financial backers, Kroll. The role of Mossad as either passive onlookers or players is not clear. I have probably missed others.

The point is, there are a lot of different interests at stake here, and simplifying the narrative into black/white terms is intellectually the same sort of move the current administration and media are espousing in the War on Terror. Let's not do that.


Let's for a moment take "cui bono" as a basis to discern likely stakeholders in 9/11. Is there any entity you want to add to your list? Hint: it starts with an "I" or maybe a "Z."

I'm not disagreeing with you, either. I don't lean in the direction of the US-govt-top-down op -- or that any state per se is "the perp."

Imo, states as well as politics

have become mostly distractions from the real trenches - lining up the haves vs the have-nots. And 9/11 is a prime example for that, being a supranational, exapolitical plot by the oiligarchs, plutocrats and their banker friends to exploit the rest of humanity.

So, just as it is wise to look behind the curtain of the republicrat divide, it is wise to look behind the divide of states and their accompanying rhetoric.

Atta was not a fundamentalist

That much is clear. He appears to have been tied to drug running and money laundering in Florida - and was part of a program at Maxwell Airforce base to train foreign pilots (assets).

But - it is not beyond possibility that some of the alleged hijackers were true patsies who were indeed recruited simply because they WERE fundamentalists.

You seem to have an "either/or" mentality about the Pakistan research. You seem to see things in black and white - believing (Correctly) that the Islamic world was being 'set-up' for these attacks.

While this is true - it does not negate the fact that Pakistan was part of the facilitation of this process. You need REAL ARABS to frame ARABS. You need REAL NETWORKS of islamic fundamentalists to frame islamic fundamentalists. Pakistan may have provided this service for us.

The idea that we must simply DISMISS all research associated with Pakistan simply because the islamic world is the victim of this scam is short sighted.

press for patsystan

yeah, you nailed 'em jon! it was u.s. puppet musharraff and his clandestine ISI kamikazee gang of money wirers and highjackers, all of whom were part of that muslim outfit. scary stuff!

Obviously you would rather

Obviously you would rather ignore all information which points to Pakistani involvement, but is it really necessary to be an asshole about it?

The "blood libel" against Islam

gets some people bent out of shape.

Do us all a favor

Do us all a favor and all of you take your egos elsewhere and STFU already. Open your mouths when it is useful and STFU when it isn't.


Submitted by FalseDichotomy on Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:05pm.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


hey, Real Truther...

the warden joke was pretty good... as paris hilton would say, "OMFG, that was hot!"

As has been pointed out

the information pointing to Pakistan really boils down to he said, she said from anonymous sources. Usually, such should be referred to as fiction, which can usually be found in entertaining novels by Tom Clancy and others. Once you acknowledge that, what remains to focus and follow up on here?

not really

we have nearly 3 decades of history and research on Pakistan that very precisely shows the links between the CIA - ISI - Taliban and Al Qaeda.

only YOU try to make this about the $100,000 transfer.

but - don't take MY word for it. I work for Nico Haupt.

Take the word of David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson, Barrie Zwicker, Michael Ruppert, Kyle Hence, Press for the Truth,, Nicholas Levis, and on and on.

I would say the vast majority of 911 researchers out there view the Pakistan research as very important and relevent to understanding 911.

Well then, good for you.

So what's your motivation to try to disallow other people's thoughts, which is what got me started in the first place, oh wise one in line with the idols of the movement?

i disallow people's thoughts?

who am i? Harry Houdini?

I just express opinions that you do not like. period.

Here's my problem with you:

1 - you slander my reputation and call me an agent for Larry Silverstein or Haupt. So why should i EVER answer ANY of your questions?

2 - you come here the day after a big flame war and AGAIN attempt to FORCE the Israel issue onto a board where people would simply like to debate the Pakistan research.

this all smacks of provacateur bahavior.

For those...

Who think the wire transfer is false, I ask that you get a retraction from the Times of India. If you can get that retraction, then I will leave the movement. You won't have to worry about me, and my crazy ideas about Pakistan anymore.

I'll even make it easy for you.

Personally, I think that because of the fact that Pakistan's involvement is SO incriminating, "faux truthers" (people pretending to be truthers, but are in actuality debunkers/trolls, etc...) are doing their best to make it seem as if it's not incriminating. But what do I know?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

What's this?

More incriminating information about Pakistan and 9/11?

"Top commanders of the Pakistan military establishment knew in advance about the Al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States in September 2001"

I must be crazy.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Oh my, threatening exile...

ain't that just a little too theatrical now, Jon?

Guess you can get that retraction once the BBC and CNN have published the source for their prescience and Al Jazeera theirs for all those funny OBL tapes. Sound fair?

Personally, I would concur with your last statement would you exchange "Pakistan's involvement" for "the whole truth" and "debunkers/trolls" for "multiple layers of gatekeeping and disinfo"...

I don't...

Think a retraction is too much to ask for.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

So do I...

but do the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera?

We're not..

Talking about Controlled Demolition. We're talking about how certain individuals don't think Pakistan's connection to 9/11 is incriminating.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Yes, we're not talking about CD

That is exactly the point of this debate: We should be talking about the demolitions instead of this flimsy evidence provided completely by anonymous sources.

Jon, what is your opinion of AIPAC?


I see... You want me to join the "Church Of Controlled Demolition"? No thanks.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

No no,

you can of course stay in the "Church That Doesn't Mind Depictions And Manifestations Of Feces Within Its Holy Halls", if you wish. After all, who am I to cram my beliefs down other people's throats? Thought that was Mr. Albanese's job...

Anyway, just to make sure: Do you still believe the case for controlled demolitions is not rock-solid? That goes on to tell a whole lot, in my humble opinion.

What was your opinion of AIPAC, again, Jon?

No no no...

It has nothing to do with whether or not I think Controlled Demolition took place at any of the three buildings on 9/11. It has to do with the fact that I don't like how certain people feel Controlled Demolition is the end all be all of 9/11 Truth, and how those certain individuals slander, ridicule, mock, etc... other individuals just because they aren't on that particular bandwagon. Absolutionists as dz referred to them. You either think as I do, or you are a shill, an agent, an Israeli mole, a CIA plant, and so on. That is what the "Church Of Controlled Demolition" is, and I want no part of it.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

"Church Of Whatever"

implies irrational, religious belief, doesn't it? Therefore, "Church Of Controlled Demolition" implies there was no sound scientific basis to it.

Or does it not? What's the rationale behind this term?

It's amazing, Jon, the more you appear backed into a corner, the more you do sound like a shill: "individuals slander, ridicule, mock, etc." "You either think as I do, or you are a shill, an agent, an Israeli mole, a CIA plant, and so on" are the phrases you try to defend yourself with now?

I hope you can see that once you strip the hystery off, there remains no more of your argument here. Questions were asked - and instead of answering them, you chose to bail out with the aforementioned blather.

What's your opinion of AIPAC?


Are irrational. AIPAC... AIPAC... hmmmm... never heard of them.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Show "Molten steel?" by bruce1337

Which topic...

Shall never be discussed?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

AIPAC...never heard of them - right

if you are denying that you've never heard of AIPAC, you are amazingly ignorant or just a liar. guess which one i'm leaning toward?

yes i have my own opinions

and i do not cave in to attempts to intimidate me into silence.

get used to it.

if you want to attempt to silence important evidence regarding 911 - such as the Pakistan evidence - then you are not just butting heads with ME. You are running afoul of some of the most prominent and important researchers in this movement - including David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson, Barrie Zwicker, Kyle Hence, Press for the Truth, Sander Hicks, Nicholas Levis,, and Michael Ruppert.

The fact that you show up on these boards attempting to silence this universally accepted important research does not make ME suspect.

What kind of doublespeak is that?

yes i have my own opinions and i do not cave in to attempts to intimidate me into silence.

Oh, really? Well guess what, I have my own opinions as well, and YOU were the one who tried to intimidate me into silence, dictating what was the topic of the blog, declaring deviant opinions the mark of enemies, and so on.

It's all documented in this thread and the one which has been closed.

i guess

it depends on how you look at it.

But this board is about Pakistan - not Israel - and not me.

And - for the record - it is one thing to express opinions - it is another thing to personally accuse me of being an agent - or taking money from Larry Silverstein.

I'm sure you can see the difference.